HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1978.03.27CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 27, 1978
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to
order Monday, March 27, 1978 at 7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Frank Cistulli
Jules L. Francard
Ruth E. Jacobs
Everett K. Kindig
Charles W. Mink (arriving at approximately 8:40 P.M.)
Thomas W. Sine, Secretary
Absent: Thomas C. Taylor (necessarily absent)
Staff Present: John R. Yost, Assistant City Planner
Jerome F. Coleman, City Attorney
Ralph E. Kirkup, City Engineer
Quorum present; Ruth E. Jacobs, Chairperson presiding.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held March 13, 1978 were approved with the deletion of
the third sentence under Item #6, page 4: "Commissioner Kindig stated his only
concern was whether a parking lot would be provided."
MINUTES OF the meeting of March 27, 1978 were approved after changing "contractor's
license" to "general contractor's license" under Item #4, page 5, paragraph 3,
second line.
Page 2
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1978
1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK 2, BURLINGAME PARK NO. 2
INTO ONE LOT; PROPERTY AT 1500 BURLINGAME AVENUE (APN 028-283-010), BY WILLIAM
WRIGHT FOR JOSEPH KARP
Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application, noting the purpose of the
map is to erase the lot line between Lots 2 and 3 (presently developed as one
property).. He referred to Item #2 on the agenda, noting the reclassification and
this map would put the entire property at 1500 Burlingame Avenue into one zoning
district (R-3) and one legal lot. He stated that a recommended condition for this
parcel map was that it be approved subject to the City's approval of the proposed
reclassification; then if rezoning were not approved, the map would be void. City
Engineer Kirkup stated the map is complete and ready for approval with no
conditions from his department. Joseph Karp, the applicant, was present and noted
the heating system for the property services both buildings; he felt they should be
considered as one•project on one lot.
Chairperson Jacobs opened the public hearing; as there was no one wishing to speak
and no correspondence, the hearing was closed. Commissioner Kindig moved that the
map be approved subject to the condition that if Lot 3 is not reclassified to R-3
then this map approval shall be void. Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion
and upon roll call it carried unanimously (5-0).
During discussion on the reclassification (Item #2) a concern about access to and
from the property on E1 Camino Real was discussed. City Attorney Coleman advised
that a condition limiting access to the Burlingame Avenue frontage would be more
appropriate to the parcel map rather than the reclassification. Commissioner Kindig
therefore moved to rescind his motion approving the tentative map; the motion was
seconded by Commissioner Sine and carried unanimously (5-0). Commissioner Kindig
then moved approval of the tentative map with two conditions: (1) at such time in
future the property is redeveloped, there shall be no ingress or egress from E1
Camino Real and (2) map approval is subject to the reclassification of Lot 3 from
R-1 to R-3 zoning district. Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion. Speaking
to the new. motion, Mr. Karp requested permission to be allowed entry to this property
from E1 Camino Real, noting he had not considered this point until this time.
Commission explained that since this is a busy corner, ingress or egress from E1
Camino Real would be undesirable. Upon roll call, the motion carried 4-1,
Commissioner Sine casting the negative vote. (See Item #2 for more discussion on this.)
2. RECLASSIFICATION OF ONE LOT FROM R-1 TO R-3, BEING A PORTION OF 1500 BURLINGAME
AVENUE (LOT 3, BLOCK 2, BURLINGAME PARK NO. 2) (PORTION OF APN 028-283-010), BY
JOSEPH KARP (PROPERTY OWNER) (ND -154P POSTED 3/10178)
Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application, noting the property at 1500
Burlingame Avenue consists of two lots: Lot 2, closest to E1 Camino Real (zoned R-3)
and Lot 3, on Burlingame Avenue (zoned R-1). There are two 4 -unit apartment buildings
on the parcel and two driveways, each of which exits from El Camino. He noted the
property is non -conforming for the following reasons: (1) R-3 use on Lot 3, which is
zoned R-1; (2) there are two separate residential buildings on Lot 2 (Code states
there should be only one); (3) one of the apartment buildings crosses the lot line
between Lots 2 and 3; (4) there is inadequate off-street parking; (5) the existing
buildings are set closer to El Camino than present code permits; (6) the existing
carport is set 5 feet closer to the westerly property line than code allows.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 3
March 27, 1978
Mr. Yost stated that if this property were redeveloped in future the map and this
reclassification would be necessary, unless Lot 3 were to revert to a single family
use. He noted that rezoning requires an environmental impact report, and that
EIR-32P was prepared in 1975 for this property and others (and was certified by
Council with amendments on April 21, 1975). He stated Negative Declaration, ND -154P,
was prepared for this new application and posted March 10, 1978 with the conclusion
that the rezoning would have little impact upon adjacent properties; that six
additional dwelling units at this location would not cause a substantial adverse
change to the neighborhood; and that the amended zoning map would be reasonably
consistent with the General Plan. Mr. Yost concluded that findings should be made
to support a motion to approve or deny the rezoning. He referred to draft findings
on page 3 of the negative declaration and page 3 of EIR-32P, and also noted that
the Commission might consider certain conditions if they choose to approve the
rezone, i.e., height or bulk restrictions, location of future buildings (a deeper
westerly side yard), and restrictions on access from E1 Camino Real. It was noted
Commission action this evening would result in preparation by staff of a resolution
with findings to be adopted April 10 and forwarded to Council.
Commissioner Sine felt that since there is no indicationthe applicant has any
intention of changing the present improvements on the property, he would be against
any limitation that may only have effect in 20 or 30 years. He felt the 35 foot
height limit controlled through the special permit process was adequate control.
Joseph Karp, the applicant, agreed with this point, stating he has no intention at
this time to do anything to the present structures and he is currently improving them.
Chairperson Jacobs then opened the public hearing. Angela Johnson, 1528 Ralston
Avenue, addressed Commission and suggested several conditions for approval of the
rezone: that no additional R-1 land be added to this parcel by a future parcel map;
that any future construction be limited to 35 feet in height; and that the existing
11 foot wide side yard be preserved along the westerly property line. She stated
there was concern that this rezoning would encourage others, which would continue
up the block into the R-1 area.
Comissioners Sine and Cistulli discussed these conditions with Ms. Johnson.
Commissioner Sine felt such restrictions would landlock the parcel forever and
explained Commission has a mandate to maintain the R-1 zoning and further that the
existing buildings would not be permitted if constructed under current codes. He
also explained that any future development over 35 feet in height would be subject
to special permit which would include Commission consideration and then conditions
could be made as to building specifics. Chairperson Jacobs added that any future
rezoning would require noticed hearing. There being no further discussion or
correspondence, the hearing was closed.
Commission discussed the application with staff and Mr. Karp. Mr. Yost confirmed
that if the existing improvements were destroyed or damaged in excess of 100% of
assessed value, the property would have to be brought up to current code standards.
Mr. Karp explained that he is only interested in this property, noting he had owned
1508 Burlingame Avenue but sold it so that it would not appear he planned to continue
the R-3 rezoning up the block. The Commission discussed the E1 Camino Real access;
Mr. Yost stated that a condominium permit requires design review and this access
could be controlled. However, if the property were developed with an apartment, then
there may be no control over future ingress/egress from El Camino.
Page 4
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1978
Commissioner Sine felt that restrictions of this type when Commission does not
know what is going to happen are restrictive, and noted that while he does not
like E1 Camino Real acess, this would come before the Commission through other
future application, i.e., condominium or special permit. Chairperson Jacobs
reminded Commission that, with present zoning regulations, if the project meets
code and is under the 35 foot height, a new apartment could be constructed without
further Commission review. City Attorney.Coleman advised that an access condition
would be more appropriate on the parcel map, rather than the reclassification.
It was decided this would be resolved after action on the reclassification.
Commissioner Kindig found the proposed reclassification to be in accordance with
the adopted General Plan and the comprehensive zoning plan of the City; also that
the reclassification would not be detrimental to the immediate neighborhood; that
the 20 foot setback from E1 Camino Real would be a hardship to Lot 2 at such time
that it was redeveloped; and that the present use of the property is multi -family
and therefore non -conforming. He therefore moved the reclassification of Lot 3
from the R-1 to R-3 district be approved. Commissioner Sine seconded the motion
and upon roll call the motion carried 5-0. Chairperson Jacobs stated she wished
the minutes to show that she would not vote on any future rezoning which was only
supported by a three year old environmental impact report.
3. VARIANCE FROM CODE CHAPTER 25.62 TO REDUCE THE FRONT SETBACK TO 7 FEET AND
ALLOW A SWIMMING POOL TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE AT 3096 RIVERA
DRIVE (APN 025-341-030), ZONED R-1, BY MIRNEZAM SAJADI
Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application. It was then noted by Chairperson
Jacobs that neither the applicant nor his architect were present (although notices
had been sent to both). Commission then continued this item to the end of the
meeting to allow time for the applicant or his representative to arrive.
At the end of`the meeting this item was then reconsidered. Since neither the applicant
nor his representative were present, the item was continued to the next regular
Commission meeting, April 10, with the stipulation that, in the absence of
communication from the applicant or his representative, it would not be continued
a second time, but dropped from the agenda.
4. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.28.050 TO PERMIT A CARPORT TO EXTEND BETWEEN HOUSE
AND GARAGE WITHOUT A 4 FOOT SEPARATION; PROPERTY AT 1004 PARK AVENUE (APN 029-
026-140), ZONED R-1, BY LJUBO BANDOV
Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application and described the property at
1004 Park Avenue which has a one story house with a detached garage. Within the
16 foot area between.a fiberglass carport has recently been constructed. He noted
the carport is attached to both the house and the face of the garage and there is
no four foot separation as required by code; new posts had been placed only 2'6"
from the property line (rather than the required 4'). He further noted the carport
is illegal as no building permit had been obtained and the applicant has been
advised by the Chief Building Inspector that the carport should be removed or
modified to meet code. Mr. Yost advised that findings should be made pertinent
to Code Sec. 25.54.020, reading the requirements for variance approval.
Page 5
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1978
Ljubo Bandov, the applicant, was present and explained he needed this as a carport,
and also to protect his basement from the rain and his family when walking to and
from the garage. Commissioner Cistulli commented that although the applicant may
not wish to park a car in the carport, should the property be sold, a new owner
might want to park there. Ne felt there were other ways to protect the basement
from rain which would be within code and explained that ordinances are to protect
the applicant's property as well as surrounding properties. It was emphasized
that fire could more readily spread if the carport were allowed to remain without
the four foot separation required by code.
Chairperson Jacobs opened the public hearing. The following people spoke in favor
of the variance. Harold Heagney stated he is a neighbor and in favor, noting the
applicant has greatly improved the property and the carport does not appear to pose
much danger. It was noted Commission had received a letter supporting the variance
from Mr. Heagney. Alois Wurnitsch, 1010 Park Avenue, stated the applicant has
greatly improved the property. George Golinsky, 1000 Park Avenue, stated he felt
there was nothing dangerous. Chairperson Jacobs noted Commission's main concerns
regard the spread of fire from one building to another and Fire Department access.
Secretary Sine read a letter dated March 23, 1978 from Myrn I. and Vern L. Calkins,
800 Linden Avenue, in opposition to the application because the codes and ordinances
of the City should be upheld. There being no further public input, the hearing was
closed.
Commission discussed the variance with the applicant and he confirmed he has had
his contractor's license for 5-6 months; however, at the time the carport was
erected (3 years ago) he was not aware of the regulations. He admitted he was guilty
of building the carport.without a building permit but since that time has done all
other work with the necessary permits. Staff confirmed the structure had been built
approximately three years ago. It was noted the applicant has three cars and only
a two car garage. It was also noted that there were alternatives to protecting
the basement from rain. Mr. Yost confirmed the applicant had been advised of the
requirements necessary to grant a variance and he reviewed those findings, noting
all four must be true or the variance must be denied. He also confirmed that even
with the new carport, lot coverage is under 40% (the maximum permitted). Commissioner
Mink arrived at the meeting (approximately 8:40 P.M.).
Commissioner Sine moved that since the applicant has not fulfilled any of the four
requirements for variance approval the variance be denied. Commissioner Cistulli
seconded the motion and upon roll call the motion carried 5-0, Commissioner Mink
abstaining. Commissioner Kindig stated the applicant has done a good job of
improving the property and that is appreciated; however, Commission feels he
could work something out that would meet code. Chairperson Jacobs said the
alternatives could be discussed with staff.
5. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.66.010 TO PERMIT AN EIGHT UNIT APARTMENT TO COVER
56% OF THE LOT AT 1210 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE (APN 029-131-210), ZONED R-3, BY
GEORGE L. SINCLAIR OF PANKO/SINCLAIR ASSOCIATES (ARCHITECTS) FOR GERALD KUNZ
(PROPERTY OWNER) (ND -155P POSTED 3/10/78)
Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application, noting the proposed apartment
design is within code requirements except for lot coverage, and it exceeds the
50% limit by 550 square feet. He noted the lot is somewhat pie -shaped, tapering
from 53' to 47.7' with an average depth of 182'. He explained the unusual design
Page 6
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1978
of the building; two stories at each end of the building with three stories in
the middle (the three story portion including parking at grade for 12 cars, with
two floors of apartments above). He noted that in spite of the excess coverage,
28 percent of the lot area would be useable open space, that is, space not devoted
to structures, parking or driveways. He felt the project is an imaginative design
which is sympathetic to surrounding properties and provides more than average
useable open space for each. tenant . He referred to Code Sec. 25.54.020 and to the
affidavit addressing the legal requirements for a variance; he also noted the
correspondence from George Sinclair, the architect for the project, and confirmed
that ND -155P had been posted March 10, 1978 for this project.
Mr. Kunz, the property owner and applicant, and Mr. Sinclair, the architect, were
present. Mr. Sinclair addressed Commission and explained that in reviewing the
potential of this lot it was found the building next door has unusual problems with
its off-street parking and very little landscaping. He noted a driveway easement
from the adjoining property owner was obtained to share a common driveway and relieve
this existing situation. He further stated this project provides a garden entry
and two sources of daylight to all units. Mr. Sinclair noted the required off-street
parking is consolidated under the building, and not in a detached carport or garage,
which reduces the amount of paved area for vehicle circulation. He concluded that
the project is an attempt to compensate for any adverse impacts through providing
more useable open space, a safer vehicular plan for this property as well as the
adjoining property and a design which would benefit the residents of the structure
as well as the surrounding neighborhood.
Chairperson Jacobs stated she felt the plan was very imaginative. Commissioner Sine
questioned the bidding on the project and Mr. Sinclair explained that plans had
been sent to about five contractors; however, no bids were received and several of
those contractors indicated a further interest. He stated a contractor is now
ready to start the project in a month's time and is completing his bidding and
other work he has in progress. Commissioner Sine noted there was no correspondence
for the public hearing and stated that because of conflict of interest he would
not participate in the discussion; he then moved to the audience for the remaining
discussion and hearing. Chairperson Jacobs opened the public hearing; there being
no one wishing to speak, the hearing was closed.
Commissioner Cistulli questioned Mr. Yost about the ingress and egress patterns.
Mr. Yost explained that adequate circulation would be obtained through a cross
easement with the adjacent property owner. City Attorney Coleman advised approval
could be conditioned on approval of the recorded easement before a building permit
is issued. Mr. Sinclair then presented the City Attorney with the necessary
easement documentation and, upon inspection, City Attorney Coleman advised that
no condition is necessary as the easement has been recorded properly. Mr. Yost
noted the actual ground area coverage is under 50%, but the 56% comes from the
second floor balconies and walkways. Chairperson Jacobs felt that while these
balconies add to the coverage figures, they should be retained because they give
the residents some private area. Mr. Yost stated staff feels it is a good project
which makes a sensible use of the property.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 7
March 27, 1978
Commissioner Mink discussed the four required findings for variance approval with
Mr. Sinclair and staff. He confirmed that the exceptional circumstances were the
tapering, narrow lot and that the concept of providing more useable open space is
consistent with the General Plan and is not in conflict with the zoning code of
the City; also that the design is not injurious to surrounding properties, but
would actually enhance the neighborhood. Commissioner Mink moved the above -noted
variance be granted, finding that based.on testimony presented the conditions for
a variance have been met. Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion and upon roll
call the motion carried 5-0, Commissioner Sine abstaining. Chairperson Jacobs
informed the applicant of the appeal dates, after which a building permit could
be obtained.
COMMUNICATIONS
6. LETTER DATED MARCH 21, 1978 FROM LARRY WINSTEN OF CHARTER FAST FREIGHT WHICH
ADVISES THAT THE BUILDING AREA TO BE LEASED AT 890 COWAN ROAD IS TO BE INCREASED
FROM 1,825 SF TO 3,640 SF (SPECIAL PERMIT FOR SALE OF INDUSTRIAL AND AUTOMOTIVE
TOOLS AT RETAIL APPROVED 2/27/78)
Commission briefly discussed the above letter with staff and Larry Winsten who was
present. Mr. Winsten explained the only reason they were getting the additional
space was that the owner of the property would not lease less than 3,640 SF to his
company. He further explained the only reason they got commitment for the additional
four parking spaces was because City Planner Swan had said they would need additional
parking for the added leased footage He emphasized they really do not need the
additional space, but since they must take it they will use it for warehousing and
do not intend to increase the retail sales area. He asked that Commission approve
this change. Commission agreed that a study meeting was not necessary; however,
the applicant was requested to submit a plan with specific square footages to show
the proposed division between the retail and warehouse areas, i.e., actual permanent
partitions between the two. It was agreed this could be considered April 10 if the
necessary plans were available.
AD.)OURNMFNT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:20 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas W. Sine
Secretary